What are the evidence of Creationism?

[FrustratedUser]

Since I obviously went OT in another thread about evolution....
Here is a new thread about showing EVIDENCE OF CREATION!

I'll start to say that evidence like '...... and this is true because God said so .....' is not considered evidence.

To me Creationism does not make sence. Let's say that Mr and Mrs Monkey was out walking and suddenly homo sapiens is created.
Hmm.. from where?

This thread will most likely become a flame fest so put on your flamesuits and join in.

 

[glen]

If all creationists were suddenly struck mute and unable to post, it would be evidence of God's Grace and Understanding.

 

[fatbaby]

It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

 

[0roo0roo]

kinda like black holes. u dont really know its there until u get crushed by it

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: glen
If all creationists were suddenly struck mute and unable to post, it would be evidence of God's Grace and Understanding.

Blaaahahahaha

 

[NewSc2]

*sigh* here we go on again


creationism has no evidence, except that we can't fully *prove* evolutionism, so therefore people assume since there's one or two missing links in evolution, creationism MUST be right!

*doesn't make sense to me either*

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: fatbaby
It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

Not exactly. With carbon dating and other proven scientific methods you can set a basic timeline for how things have happened on earth. It's easy to see how the planet changed which led to simple life which evolved into multicellular life and eventually to more complex life form like insects, plants and politicians which in turn led to dinosaurs, mammals and us. There's not a single religion that views creationism as "God created an empty planet and then things happened slowly over hundreds of millions of years." Every one is narcissistic enough to belief in the BS "God loves us, so he made us" and we know that isn't true. So even if you take the quontum leap of logic to there actually being a God that created the earth, EVERY view of creationism is wrong.

 

[0roo0roo]

we know conscousness is linked to the brain. how it works we don't know exactly.

oh no!!

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
we know conscousness is linked to the brain. how it works we don't know exactly.

oh no!!

That's no evidence, or is it?
LOL.

 

[fatbaby]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: fatbaby
It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

Not exactly. With carbon dating and other proven scientific methods you can set a basic timeline for how things have happened on earth. It's easy to see how the planet changed which led to simple life which evolved into multicellular life and eventually to more complex life form like insects, plants and politicians which in turn led to dinosaurs, mammals and us. There's not a single religion that views creationism as "God created an empty planet and then things happened slowly over hundreds of millions of years." Every one is narcissistic enough to belief in the BS "God loves us, so he made us" and we know that isn't true. So even if you take the quontum leap of logic to there actually being a God that created the earth, EVERY view of creationism is wrong.

How do we know that somewhere when the bacteria were about to evolve into fish (hypothetical here), God didn't step in and decided to make them into lizards but placed fossil fish in sediment? We don't.

 

[ReiAyanami]

if u dont intuitively believe in your own soul, u'll have real fun in the afterlife....

 

[Kadarin]

Every argument that I've ever heard in support of Creationism has actually been an attack on the Theory of Evolution. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence in favor of Creationism, and certainly none which passes muster under the scientific method.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: fatbaby
It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

Not exactly. With carbon dating and other proven scientific methods you can set a basic timeline for how things have happened on earth. It's easy to see how the planet changed which led to simple life which evolved into multicellular life and eventually to more complex life form like insects, plants and politicians which in turn led to dinosaurs, mammals and us. There's not a single religion that views creationism as "God created an empty planet and then things happened slowly over hundreds of millions of years." Every one is narcissistic enough to belief in the BS "God loves us, so he made us" and we know that isn't true. So even if you take the quontum leap of logic to there actually being a God that created the earth, EVERY view of creationism is wrong.

How do we know that somewhere when the bacteria were about to evolve into fish (hypothetical here), God didn't step in and decided to make them into lizards but placed fossil fish in sediment? We don't.

How do we know that Santa Claus didn't fly down my non existant chimney last night and eat my frozen hamburgers then replaced them with new ones from his bag? We don't.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: smp

Originally posted by: glen
If all creationists were suddenly struck mute and unable to post, it would be evidence of God's Grace and Understanding.

Blaaahahahaha

Indeed

That was good!

 

[glenn1]

What are the evidence of Creationism?

Every argument that I've ever heard in support of Creationism has actually been an attack on the Theory of Evolution. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence in favor of Creationism, and certainly none which passes muster under the scientific method.

To answer the first point, there's not really any "evidence," unless of course God comes down and gives an interview on CNN. I would presume that would be relatively conclusive if it did happen though.

To answer the second point, you're framing things in the wrong way. You're trying to impose the framework of science onto an article of faith, which by definition isn't going to conform to the scientific method. I couldn't "prove" that love exists under the scientific method either, but do you use that same reasoning to say it doesn't exist?

Since i don't think you'll find many people who disagree with the idea of natural selection and adaptation regardless of their POV on creationism, the question ultimately boils down to one ultimately unknowable mystery: whether life arose from abiogenesis or divine creation. By all means, find a definitive proof (or disproof) of either position if you can. There's a guaranteed Nobel prize waiting for the person able to do that, no matter which answer it ends up being.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: fatbaby
It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

Not exactly. With carbon dating and other proven scientific methods you can set a basic timeline for how things have happened on earth. It's easy to see how the planet changed which led to simple life which evolved into multicellular life and eventually to more complex life form like insects, plants and politicians which in turn led to dinosaurs, mammals and us. There's not a single religion that views creationism as "God created an empty planet and then things happened slowly over hundreds of millions of years." Every one is narcissistic enough to belief in the BS "God loves us, so he made us" and we know that isn't true. So even if you take the quontum leap of logic to there actually being a God that created the earth, EVERY view of creationism is wrong.

How do we know that somewhere when the bacteria were about to evolve into fish (hypothetical here), God didn't step in and decided to make them into lizards but placed fossil fish in sediment? We don't.

Still don't need a time machine. You could just wait a few million years. That'd prove the existence of macro evolution without a time machine.

 

[HOWITIS]

HEAR YE, HEAR YE! I AM GOD. KNOW NOW THAT I AM REAL, AND THOU MUST SUBMIT UNTO THEE.

 

[HOWITIS]

I couldn't "prove" that love exists under the scientific method either, but do you use that same reasoning to say it doesn't exist?

actually you could, and it has. the chemical compisition of the brain has been measured when with loved ones, not to mention the fact that it has been observed in practice many times.


first you gotta decide on your definition of love though, some believe its something related to magical beings such as the christian god. whitch has as much chance as being proven as the easter bunny.

 

[fatbaby]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: fatbaby
It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

Not exactly. With carbon dating and other proven scientific methods you can set a basic timeline for how things have happened on earth. It's easy to see how the planet changed which led to simple life which evolved into multicellular life and eventually to more complex life form like insects, plants and politicians which in turn led to dinosaurs, mammals and us. There's not a single religion that views creationism as "God created an empty planet and then things happened slowly over hundreds of millions of years." Every one is narcissistic enough to belief in the BS "God loves us, so he made us" and we know that isn't true. So even if you take the quontum leap of logic to there actually being a God that created the earth, EVERY view of creationism is wrong.

How do we know that somewhere when the bacteria were about to evolve into fish (hypothetical here), God didn't step in and decided to make them into lizards but placed fossil fish in sediment? We don't.

Still don't need a time machine. You could just wait a few million years. That'd prove the existence of macro evolution without a time machine.

The original poster wants us to show em evidence. Now unless the poster and some other guy here has the goblet of immortality, we will need a time machine to travel a few million years

 

[FrustratedUser]

I did at least expect some of the creationists who so fearsfully debated in the other thread to join in and defend their point of view. Presenting arguments that Evolutionists like myself can debate. Just like Creationists always argue agains Evolution.

*sigh*

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: fatbaby
It is impossible to prove creationism w/o a time machine...same with macroevolution

Not exactly. With carbon dating and other proven scientific methods you can set a basic timeline for how things have happened on earth. It's easy to see how the planet changed which led to simple life which evolved into multicellular life and eventually to more complex life form like insects, plants and politicians which in turn led to dinosaurs, mammals and us. There's not a single religion that views creationism as "God created an empty planet and then things happened slowly over hundreds of millions of years." Every one is narcissistic enough to belief in the BS "God loves us, so he made us" and we know that isn't true. So even if you take the quontum leap of logic to there actually being a God that created the earth, EVERY view of creationism is wrong.

How do we know that somewhere when the bacteria were about to evolve into fish (hypothetical here), God didn't step in and decided to make them into lizards but placed fossil fish in sediment? We don't.

Still don't need a time machine. You could just wait a few million years. That'd prove the existence of macro evolution without a time machine.

The original poster wants us to show em evidence. Now unless the poster and some other guy here has the goblet of immortality, we will need a time machine to travel a few million years

Why do we suddenly need a time machine to discuss this? It was not needed when Evolution should be proved.
*ahem*

 

[HOWITIS]

I did at least expect some of the creationists who so fearsfully debated in the other thread to join in and defend their point of view. Presenting arguments that Evolutionists like myself can debate. Just like Creationists always argue agains Evolution.

how can you prove that a magical white man in space exists?


i have religous friends who try to "prove" god exists by disproving evolution. i try to explaing to them that even if evolution was proven wrong, i could never believe in magical beings.

 

[silverpig]

The point still is: You don't need one in order to prove evolution. Macro-evolution is provable (either proven correct or incorrect) without using a time machine. You'll just have to wait a while for your rock solid evidence.

Creationism on the other hand may not be provable. God may come down and show everyone, thus proving it, but he may not... If he doesn't, you can't prove creationism wrong, but you can't prove it correct either, unless you have proven macro-evolution and assume that macro-evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.



That being said, I would like to say that there is sufficient evidence to strongly suggest that macro-evolution is indeed accurate to a reasonable degree of certainty. I think the real question should be not whether macro-evolution is accurate, but:

Are macro-evolution and creationism mutually exclusive?


If yes: There is a lot of evidence that serves to prove the abscence of creationism.

If no: There is absolutely no evidence that serves to prove the abscence of creationism.

 

[glenn1]

actually you could, and it has. the chemical compisition of the brain has been measured when with loved ones, not to mention the fact that it has been observed in practice many times.

first you gotta decide on your definition of love though, some believe its something related to magical beings such as the christian god. whitch has as much chance as being proven as the easter bunny.

Gosh, how science defines love is a lot like how accountants define happiness. Stop thinking in terms of chemical reactions in the brain, and consider why science isn't designed to test/prove intangible concepts. Love is just one example, you could just as easily substitute something else in its place. Would you try proving the concept of "honor" by testing dopomine levels in the brain?

That's why i'm saying that asking for evidence of creationism based on scientific method is somewhat silly. If you consider yourself a scientist, you shouldn't care what a creationist thinks about how life arose, trying to test their ideas by the scientific method is a fool's errand on its face. Let scientists stick to what science is designed for, and let religion concern itself with what it cares about, and everyone's happy.

 

[HOWITIS]

george carlin on religion:

When it comes to bulls***, big-time, major league bulls***, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bulls** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls*** story. Holy S***